Talk:Psychobilly/Archive 1

"One Piece at a Time"

Considering "One Piece at a Time" wasn't a Cash-penned song, wouldn't it make more sense to credit the writer Wayne Kemp? Cash wrote enough of his own songs that crediting him here might seem to suggest that he coined the term "psychobilly."--24.9.8.61 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverend Horton Heat

So, I notice Reverend Horton Heat listed here as a pyschobilly band, and I see a link to punkabilly under "See also". But see, I thought Rev. Horton Heat was a punkabilly band. Is punkabilly the same as pyschobilly? And then of course the current page on Rev. Horton Heat calls them rockabilly, which is less specific... Isomorphic 17:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Punkabilly

I've never heard of punkabilly before I've just heard of punk if thats what you mean but I think Rev. Horton Heat is Psychobilly you might of been confused because Psychobilly is Punk and Rockabilly put toghether

I'm pretty sure "punkabilly" is just an attempt to unnecessarily categorize an already very small genre. Inanechild

The Rev. Horton Heat is definitely psychobilly (they even had a song on their first album called 'Psychobilly Freakout') and the punkabilly article will be deleted. - 68.37.125.87 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think punkabilly is a subgenre of psychobilly. Being psychobilly a mix of rockabilly and punk, there are psychobilly songs that are more rockabilly influenced and others that have a deeper punk influence. The main difference, in my humble opinion, is the way the rhythm guitar plays. In punkabilly, rhythm guitar is played with raw punk style achords.. on the other side some psychobilly guitar players play rhythm parts with fingerpickin style, a more rockabilly approach.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.37.237.17 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of article

Horribly written by some scenester wanna be.

I noticed some inconsistencies and just plain untrue stuff in the original article myself, so I tried to fix it up. Inanechild

It's really bad. It reads like an 8th grade book report. I think it should be pulled altogether. There's no history, no facts, it's not well written, language could be better. LBCboyee 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Motorhead

Frogus - does anybody actually consider Motorhead a precursor to psychobilly?? In what respect did motorhead influence the style?

How could anyone like psychobilly and not love motorhead? It's strict entailment, extensionally, even if I can't justify it intentionally. Just look at their fans. Get fucked up and look at their fans. I don't know what conclusions it might lead you to, just do it. Wastoid 04:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I wouldn't have considered them myself. I listed them because of their mention as a precursor in "Street Style," a book by Ted Polhemus which is a good authority on psychobilly. They're also mentioned as a precursor on the Wrecking Pit, one of the Internet's prominent psychobilly sites. (Link in external links) Inanechild

In the early years of the genre, the only link between Psychobilly and Motorhead would have been the Ace record label (Motorhead and the Meteors both released on ACE). Then Batmobile covered Ace of Spades in the mid 80's. The real link came in the early 90's with bands like Mad Sin (especially their Break The Rules lp) introducing a more "metal" sound to their music. So, not a precurser to the original Psychobilly scene/music, but certainly an influence today. Steelcap 23:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering Motorhead's relation to the pub rock scene, and considering that the first two Motorhead albums were more like a combination of pub rock and metal, I think they could be included as being influential.

PitBullFarm

Its NEEDS its own article. Please.

• To all the people who keep adding Pitbull Farm to this article, if you think they are notable enough to warrant an article, feel free to start writing one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Starting_a_new_page Spylab 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for being a bother.

The Misfits

I dont see why The Misfits arent added as a HUGE influence in Psychobilly since they are one of the few bands back in the beginning of psychobilly that started with Horror

Yes, the Misfits had horror-related lyrics, but so did a whole bunch of other early punk bands. In terms of sound, they really had no effect. Their success and psychobilly happened at nearly the same time, so I don't think they can be credited as an early influence. Inanechild

I don't agree with you because the music that Misfits do has a name, HORROR PUNK, and I don't think that horror punk and psychobilly are the same. Thanks for the attention.

The Clarendon

After the demise of Klubfoot, it should not be forgotten that The Clarendon took its place in Hammersmith as a London psychobilly epicenter, regularly featuring the Guana Bats (who also should not be forgotten).

a bit harder"?

Has anyone noticed the 1990's psychobilly is described as "a bit harder"? This is not only opinionated, but it also doesn't help to describe the differences at all! Can anyone be bothered to edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.150.119 (talk • contribs)

Can you be bothered? Notinasnaid 08:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychobilly/Punkabbilly are the same in your eyes

Man this is strange! on punkabilly is written:its a mix of punk and rockabilly and on psychobilly is written it's a mix of punk and rockabilly! the articels are the same and psychobilly is a fusion of horrorpunk and rockabilly! psychobilly bands have strong horrorpunk influences because they have horror lyrics like in horrorpunk and do wop influences and the same horror film influences! IS that right? Melodic Horror

You know, I have no idea. I removed links to "punkabilly" from this article because frankly the "punkabilly" article is extremely lacking. It's very small and pretty much says the exact same thing this article's opening paragraphs do. It seems to me that "punkabilly" is a word somebody made up that has the same connotations as psychobilly. Before seeing the word here I'd never heard "punkabilly" in my life. As to your other question, it seems debatable whether horrorpunk was a major influence on psychobilly, as the two subgenres seem to have formulated at around the same time. Certainly I think you could say that later psychobilly groups (Tiger Army, Nekromantix, etc.) were influenced to some degree by horrorpunk bands like the Misfits (Tiger Army covered "American Nightmare" on their Early Years EP and are closely tied to AFI, who are fans of and have covered the Misfits, so the connection is rather obvious). However, I don't think you could say the same for early psychobilly bands like The Cramps or The Meteors as they were contemporary with most horrorpunk bands (late '70s/early '80s) at a time when both genres were small enough and geographically separated enough not to notice each other. Well, maybe you could, but you'd have to cite a source. Just because both genres share a love of horror movies doesn't mean that one influenced the other. --IllaZilla 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But you can write: the later psychobilly bands have strong influnces of horrorpunk or you can write into the box of influnced styles for psychobilly punkrock, rockabilly and horrorpunk ok? Melodic Horror

I notice you did just that in the infobox and I tweaked it just a bit for capitalization (genre names aren't capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence as they aren't proper nouns). I think it's fine now. P.S. you don't have to leave identical comments both here and on my talk page. I have this page on my watchlist so we can keep the discussion in the relevant place. --IllaZilla 14:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrecking?

"From the Meteors wikipedia page: They developed a loyal following known as "the Crazies, or Zorchmen" who invented their own dance style called "going mental," a cross between fighting, dancing and moshing. This would later be renamed "wrecking," and is still a staple of the psychobilly scene to this day."

Can someone include some information on this dance in the article and explain what exactly it is? The fact that it is "still a staple of the psychobilly scene to this day" seems rather important. --76.78.111.130 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that one would be able to find a reference for that, though there is a style of moshing known as "wrecking" which is associated with psychobilly shows. (P.S. new topics go at the bottom of the page) --IllaZilla 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it for me. So what exactly is the style of moshing? How does one "wreck"? --76.78.111.130 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the only time I've really seen it, it was basically 2 guys sort of crossed arms and linked hands, then crouched in a seated position and spun themselves around faster and faster in the pit. It sort of looked like something kids would do on a playground, except the centrifugal force caused them to spin around uncontrollably and intentionally slam into people. Sort of like a wrecking ball, hence "wrecking." I don't know what other wrecking techniques there might be, but I had a pretty low opinion of it since it pretty much willfully hurt people who were anywhere near the pit. I've never seen it described in an article or a website, so I can't really think of a way to integrate it into the article. --IllaZilla 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

well, the way most people i know wreck involves a lot of elbow swinging and limbs all akimbo. watch the devil's smile live video. best example i can think of at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.7.209 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychobilly Link

To all the Wiki-police: The link I put on the Psychobilly topic isn't an advertisement! Baltimore Psychobilly is a RESOURCE for people interested in learning about this genre! If you took the time to check the link you would know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwgreen65 (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOT#GUIDE -- we're not here to provide resources. We're here to write an encyclopedia. -- Gscshoyru (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic Origins

'Driven by the rhythmic pounding of a stand-up bass, the music swings with the snarl of punk rock while sometimes thrashing alongside speed metal or crashing headlong into country icon Hank Williams'

Is that being used to add 'speed metal' to the stylistic origins? It seems unsuitable since it says sometimes which means it doesn't go for much of the genre.

'The music appeals to fans of punk, indie, metal, new wave, goth, rockabilly, surf, [and] country'

This? Surely not? Appealling to fans of other genres does not make the genres stylistic origins for this one. Munci (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those are genres which stylistically influence psychobilly from approx. the third wave onward (as the history section elaborates). I could give quite a few specific examples, amongst them Tiger Army who have songs on each of their albums that are either heavily country-influenced or just straight-up country (see the music samples), and Nekromantix, who as the style section explains had one of their albums nominated for a Grammy for "best heavy metal album". The magazine article that I used to source most of this article gives mentions of how each of the genres listed has influenced psychobilly and affected the style over the years. The quotes I chose just seemed to sum it up best and rather succinctly. Again, I could give examples such as the HorrorPops whose music shows strong influences of new wave, pop, and goth (note there is a reference for this as well: a review of their latest album in Alternative Press). I'm going to look for additional sources, since one of the article's weaknesses at this point is that it relies almost entirely on a single source, but I don't think any of these genres should be removed from the infobox. They are all styles which have influenced psychobilly throughout the genre's history. The bottom line is that there are reliable sources supplied in the article body to support the genres listed in the infobox, which is more than can be said for a majority of music articles on WP at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The quotes chosen are inappropriate for showing that another genre was part of the stylistic origns for psychobilly. The fact that many of the bands are x-influenced psychobilly does not make it that psychobilly is For example, Tiger Army are both country and psychobilly. This does not mean that psychobilly as a whole is influenced by country. Psychobilly may well be influenced by country, but the fact that Tiger Army have elements of both is not evidence that it is. Also, these are taken from the third wave you say. Stylistic origins is for how the genre started out so it should be the genres that were inspiration for the first wave that should be in there and it should be genres that influenced a majority of the bands not just some. Munci (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the article the stylistic origins should be punk rock, rockabilly, horror films and garage rock. Munci (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me give some direct quotes from the magazine article that I used as a source for most of this article:

• "Psychobilly is both a sound and a way of life, with roots as deep as street punk, Two-Tone ska or the Oi! your friendly neighborhood skinhead is rocking." (p. 77)
• "It's a mix of U.K. scooterboy, skinhead, punk and rockabilly aesthetics." (p. 77)
• "...the music swings with the snarl of punk rock while sometimes thrashing alongside speed metal or crashing headlong into country icon Hank Williams." (p. 77)
• "...while there were certainly rockabilly and garage-rock bands who influenced what would become psycho, it wasn't so much about one morphing into the other, as it was all of them happening simultaneously." (p. 77)
• "These bands are characterized by their ambitious experimentation, as hardcore, metal, country, goth and ska all got stirred into their psychobilly brew." (p. 78)
• "The music appeals to fans of punk, indie, metal, new wave, goth, rockabilly, surf, country." (p. 78)
• "Largely influenced by punk rock and Oi!, as well as rockabilly's simplified instrumentation..." (p. 82)

Obviously it's pertinent to paraphrase/synthesize these various influences into the article body and the infobox. I see no reason to remove genres from the infobox that are discussed in the article body with appropriate references. The biggest problem with the "origins" field in most genre articles (and the "genre" field in most musical artist articles) is that the genres listed are not supported with any commentary or references elsewhere in the article. That being the case, why nitpick about the genres listed in this infobox which are supported by referenced commentary in the article body? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed in the body of the article with references is not sufficient for them to be considered stylistic origins. These sources need to say that the genres are actually influences, not just vaguely related.

• p77:Having roots as deep as something does not mean they have the latter as origins. By this sentence, the article is comparing this subgenre of punk to other subgenres, saying they are similar in that the other 3 subgenres are also considered to have 'deep roots'.
• p77:This is fine because it talks of the genre as a whole being influenced by these.
• p77:This I have already talked about. The operative word here is 'sometimes'. It doesn't apply to all or even a majority of bands and therefore should not be put as stylstic origins.
• p77:This is fine.
• p78:This talks of bands experimenting with an established genre called psychobilly, not mixing these genres to create a new genre called psychobilly. It also uses 'their psychobilly brew' implying the mix was specific to the particular band or particular bands, rather than being added to psychobilly as a whole, in which case it would use 'the psychobilly brew'.
• p78:Having the same fans as another genre does not mean they are influenced by that genre.
• p82:This is fine. Munci (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While there are issues with the actual wording of this article, I think someone needs to address the stylistic origins block up in the corner. I mean, there's almost no precedent for this kind of genre-packing. Look at any of the more heavily-trafficked and popular styles of music. Heavy metal lists two genres, pop --- pop music for Christ's sake, lists five. We might as well include everything from here and let's not forget this. Because who knows...they're might be some super-hip band with a 2" demo out that somehow managed to incorporate all of them simultaneously. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and may I suggest just stripping that section down to say, country, rock and roll, punk rock and deathrock? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above, every single one of the genres listed is referenced in the "style" section. How would we discriminate which ones to cut out? My first instinct would be to trim it down to just blues, garage rock, punk rock, rockabilly, and rock and roll. However, as the "style" section explains, most current psychobilly acts now draw from most of the genres listed. They're not listed because only 1 or 2 acts draw from them, they're listed because many acts draw from them. I see no need to remove genres that are properly referenced & explained in the article body. Also note that "death rock" is not included at all, as the references do not refer to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Just explain to me why this article is the only one you feel unimpeachably requires every single possible outgrowth to be incorporated. I was not aware that the "stylistic origins" meant not only the actual genres which were stewed together to demarcate this style as original, but also to mean any type of stylistic diffusion, which of course must be retroactively mentioned. This is just stupid. It neglects all sense of consistency and encyclopedic tenor. Like I said, the article for pop music, which is something that has found time to incorporate just about EVERY other genre, doesn't include all of them in its stylistic origins, not even the ones it mentions in it's History section. Oh, well, though, if you're heart's consolidated around the issue that much, then please take the time to mess up all the other origins sections for other genres. I can't imagine how many obscure African rhythm genres have been incorporated into rock music. Oh...I won't spoil the rest. You'll find 'em and can tell everyone else about this....theory. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've trimmed the genres in the origins down to 6 (Blues, garage rock, rhythm and blues, punk rock, rockabilly, rock and roll), but I want to make it known that I still disagree with this assertion that there should only be a minimal number of genres listed. Why arbitrarily limit information that is properly referenced? We have enough difficulty getting editors to stick to genres that are referenced in the article, instead of just inserting their own POV into every music-related infobox. That was the point of the hidden message I placed and the criteria it set up for adding/removing genres from the infobox. That said, there were some that I was definitely willing to compromise on. For example hardcore punk, oi!, and street punk are all subgenres of punk rock, so trimming it down to just "punk rock" was pretty easy. A few of the others were subgenres of rock and roll or blues, so those were trimmable too. As for the 6 remaining: the references in the article clearly list punk rock, rockabilly, and garage rock as the most immediate precursors to psychobilly. It also describes how the Cramps, the progenitors of psychobilly, based their sound on blues, rhythm & blues, & rock & roll. Since these all formed the framework for psychobilly, I chose to leave them. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main gripe with it was that many of the terms overlapped or umbrella'd the others, as well as the fact that some of them weren't exactly prevalent amongst early psychobilly bands (things like speed metal or overt heavy metal influence), but were incorporated later on, and it wasn't sticking with the precedent set by other articles. Rather than a prismatic, exhaustive list of genres, we can state the core influences, rather than every dabbled-in or minorly incorporated techniques and sounds. And really, isn't that the definitive definition of stylistic origins? Oh, I must say that it is. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it should just say Punk and Rockabilly. Those are the two genres that were fused for early Psychobilly. It makes it easy to understand. Blues, R&B, Rock & Roll and whatnot are merely roots of either Punk or Rockabilly already. Tim010987 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but the secondary sources indicate otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration/Influence for Psycho....

I hate to be a nit-picky prick.... but at least half of the bands listed (and audio sampled) do not fit the genre of Psychobilly "proper".

I mean Living End? C'mon..... not even close to Psycho. It even violates the "No politics-just rock" Law of psycho.

What ever happened to the Klingonz? The Frantic Flinstones?

This wiki reads like it was written by a 19 y/o hot topic kid that found out about psychobilly last week when he jacked one of his older sister's Tiger Army albums. I hate to sound like an elitist music snob, but one must ask onesself... "what would Fenech say?"

Seary6579 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand a little corrected... (been drinking, read more thoroughly), but still, the music samples to represent Psychobilly still kinda suck. Tere are far better examples... maybe when I sober up a bit I'll hook it up with some.

Seary6579 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole article from basically a stub. For the record, I'm a 27 year old who is actually writing his master's thesis on the impact of punk & alternative music. The problem with working on this article was a lack of secondary source material. I really wanted to improve it, but I only had 1 good magazine article to use a source. So I stuck to what the source said, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'd love to have included some of the groups you mention, but I've never heard of them, much less found any sources from which to write encyclopedic content about them. As for the Living End, the article addresses their relationship to psychobilly. They share many of its musical characteristics and are a highly notable band with (loose) ties to the genre. For the music samples I stuck to acts/songs that were discussed in the article's prose. I feel they are good examples of some of the more notable psychobilly acts. Though you are welcome to suggest improvements, I'd ask you to be more civil and assume good faith both on my part and on the parts of others who've contributed to this article. Wikipedia is not a fan page for "true psychos" to gush about their favorite bands and rip on those they think suck. It is an encyclopedia, and we have to stick to notable subjects and reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No Punkabilly?

So I saw that the punkabilly article had been taken away and was basically replaced with... nothing. I have to *strongly* disagree with that. I think there needs to be at least something, if not its own article, then at least a paragraph or a section detailing the difference between bands that would qualify as punkabilly such as Rev. Horton Heat, Three Bad Jacks, and Amazing Royal Crowns, and more horror-influenced bands like the Nekromantix and Demented Are Go. Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "taken away" & "replaced with nothing". It was merged into this article (as was the Gothabilly article). There were quite a few suggestions/requests on the Punkabilly talk page for this, and general consensus was that a merge was appropriate. The main issue was that both the Punkabilly and Gothabilly articles had no sources at all and were almost not even articles, but rather lists of red links to bands with no Wikipedia articles. There wasn't a single reference in either (see [1] and [2]), and they both described their genres as "rockabilly + punk rock", which is what psychobilly is. If the only distinction is the lyrics and/or amount of horror influence, that doesn't really distinguish a separate genre. Reverend Horton Heat, the Living End, and others are discussed a bit in this article, but there aren't any sources to verify the information. If you can come up with some sources (most importantly third-party ones), then by all means go ahead and add them to the article. In the absence of sources, though, we really shouldn't just arbitrarily create new sections that would qualify as original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you need third party sources, that's fair. What about the Urban Dictionary? It defines the word "punkabilly" [3] and the word "gothabilly" [4]. Also, there is an interview with a band called The Limit Club where they describe the difference between gothabilly and psychobilly [5]. So there you have it. There are your third party sources. My point is that these words are out there, they have meaning, and I didn't make them up. So it's worth discussing them and putting them in the article in some way. Also, if you look at the Urban Dictionary articles, you'll notice that people vote on the term and *several* people have agreed with the top terms for both words. Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquisitorgeneralis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but those are not third-party sources. Urban Dictionary is a wiki, so it is not a reliable source and not considered useable as a source for this article. An interview is a primary source. WP:V and WP:NOR ask for reliable third-party sources, which neither of these are. I'm not suggesting these are made-up words, nor that they can't be discussed in the article; I'm merely saying that the solid secondary sources need to be found first. Until then, adding separate sections about them to this article would constitute original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, and I understand that rules are rules, but this is an article about psychobilly for cryin' out loud. It's not like we're talking about a major historical event of huge socio-political importance. I would understand being a stickler for the rules if you were discussing the number of deaths that occurred during the Holocaust, but this? C'mon! Pretty much everyone I've talked to about the subject in real life agrees that Psychobilly, Punkabilly, and Gothabilly are three different things. I'm not even sure that you necessarily disagree. Shouldn't the Wikipedia article reflect this article in at least some minimal sort of way? Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the aim of providing factual, neutral, and comprehensive coverage of numerous topics. We treat every subject with the same level of seriousness, whether it's a garage band, a television series, or a major historical event. The core "rules" apply to all articles. If someone wants to start their own website or wiki devoted to these genres, that's fine and they can say whatever they want there. But here in the encyclopedia we require reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if I can throw in my 2cents in this, I just wanna say that Gothabilly and Psychobilly are NOT the same, Gothabilly has western Flair to it. The only thing Really Gothabilly and Psyschobilly have incommon is song subjects out than that that is it, the sounds are way diffrent. Gothabilly music can sound surf or Rockabilly or even Doo wop. there is soo many sounds Gothabilly can come under. Psychobilly is just Screaming and blues base Chords played a Punk rock speed. like some gothabilly bands I would say are Dave Vanian the Phantom Chords, the Hammerdowns,Fink. and the NEKROMANTIX are not Gotahbilly Nor are the Horrorpops. Also Gothabilly and Psychobilly Fashions Differ as well again. Gothabillies tend to dress more Westurn than Psychobillies or can also be more Greaser 1950's. Now a Psychobillies way of dress tends to be more Punk Rockish. with the spikes and the Suds. One thing is the hair on males is diffrent yes they both have pompadors but a Psychobillie Pomp has no Side burns while the Gothabilly Pomp has a more Vampiric Flair to it. As for Punkabilly and Psychobilly there Diffrent as well if I wanna say Psychobilly comes from i would say Horror Punk and Metal. because bands that would be Punkabilly is the Living End, the Rev Horton Heat, Nine Pound Hammer has a Billy flavor to them as well. Because Gothabilly and Psychobilly and Punkabilly are All 3 Verydiffrent Styles of Music and Fashion Sure they all have the word "Billy" in there names and Come from Rockabilly in one form or another and they all have a BIG Slap bass. But that doesnt make them all the same. because when u ill inform a person about a scene that is what kills it. because someone always wants to think there acting like they should and that is not how to be. So Bring back the gothabilly and Punkabilly pages. So People will know there Diffrent from Psychobilly. "Gotahbilly Steve" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.233.117.67 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for any of these claims? It all sounds like your own personal opions & tastes to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some kind of "scene report". Information that isn't verifiable and consists of your own original research isn't permitted, sorry. Also, who says all fans/performers of a similar musical style have to play exactly the same, dress the same, or style their hair the same? If these are the only criteria you have for distinguishing these genres, then they're very poor ones. Take punk rock, for example: there are many different bands with many different individual sounds, and hundreds of different fashions associated with the genre. Psychobilly is not "just screaming and blues-based chords played at punk rock speed"; there are many different bands with many different sounds. Read the article. The Cramps have blues and surf influences, Tiger Army incorporates country and '90s punk rock, Horrorpops have a new wave influence, Nekromantix have a touch of metal, etc. etc. etc. Not every act within a genre falls into narrowly-defined parameters. You're distinguishing different musical genres based on haircuts? Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, could both of you please remember to sign your posts? Just type 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment and it will do it automatically when you click "save page". You can also do it by clicking on the signature button above the edit window, or on the 4 tildes just below and to the right of the "save page" button, where it says "sign your username" in bold. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with your points here, harircuts, my god. Being an active musician in this scene since 1983 I have seen much different influences and styles come up within the boundaries of 'psychobilly'. It started of with being rockabilly with a twist, mostly a punky twist. But also horror and country influences were incorporated at the early start. Since the late 80's there were bands experimenting with metal sounds in their music (Like the general sound of DAG or Batmobile's cover of Ace of Spades on their Nervous album Bail's Set..). Bands like the Nekomantix took some influences from that sounds, although I guess they would say their main influences were rockabilly, punk and early psychobilly bands. If you take a closer look/listen to the different sounds within psychobilly, you can hear exemples of more neo-psycho-rockabilly bands (like Restless and the Sharks), the heavier psychobillybands (like for instance The Meteors, Batmobile, Frantic Flintstones) and the more punk based bands (like Demented Are Go and Klingonz) that all played countless psychobilly shows/festivals. So there's much difference between bands and styles and saying "Psychobilly is just Screaming and blues base Chords played a Punk rock speed" just shows a lot of ignorance about this musical style JJHammer (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

1st and 2nd wave?

Not to be a grump, but there was a Euro scene at the time you call 'UK 1st wave' for instance Batmobile (1983, headlined numerous festivals including te KlubFoot), so the evolution written here is wrong and incomplete. --JJHammer (talk) 06:16, 09 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be your estimation, but the article sticks to what its sources say. I'm sure there were bands elsewhere in Europe, but the main source for the article is pretty clear on London being the epicenter of early psychobilly in Europe. It's not me calling the first wave British, it's the source. I've never heard of Batmobile, and they're not mentioned in any of the sources currently used in the article. If there were a source, then it would certainly be worth mentioning in the article. But at the moment there isn't. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on London being the place where it all started back then. I was only stating that there was a big scene in Europe as well before the peiod that's called 2nd wave. And Batmobile was and still is one of the main bands in the scene, I just think the article isn't complete without them. --JJHammer (talk) 08:43, 09 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this website: [6] or [7] or you can check out this myspace site: [8] --JJHammer (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are good links, but unfortunately not appropriate for this article. Per WP:V and WP:RS, articles must rely primarily on third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The wrecking pit appears to be a fan page/forum and therefore not suitable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, either as source or an external link. The myspace, however, would be a appropriate in an external links section of a separate article about Batmobile themselves (see WP:EL for guidelines on external links). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you want to use reliable sources. However, I consider knowing bands such as Batmobile background knowledge. A quick look at their discography should be evidence enough for their important role in European psychobilly. Alsoit should be noted that Great Britain is part of Europe as well, so the geographical devisions applied in this article are misleading for readers that lack this information. I might add that a scientific research simply can't be based on one article or one interviewee only. As there is little "proper" material written on the subject, one has to rely on primary sources such as people who actually were there when it happened. Oral history can't be limited to Nick 13 who made his first visit to Europe not until the mid nineties and can't be considered an expert on early psychobilly. --Lohmax (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not merely that I want to use reliable sources, it's that reliable third-party sources are required by Wikipedia for all article information, per our policies on verifiability and original research and our guidelines on reliable sources. Considering that there is no Wikipedia article on the band Batmobile, we can't assume that readers will get "evidence enough for their important role in European psychobilly" by looking at their discography. If you want to start an article about Batmobile, by all means go ahead if you have some good references to build the article around. Those references could also be used in this article to discuss their significance to the genre. But in the absence of any references mentioning them, I'm afraid we can't include them simply because we assume readers will understand their significance. The geographical divisions thing is how the primary source for the article describes it; I should also note as a historian that there are longstanding debates about how much Great Britain really is a part of Europe, geographically, politically & culturally. That's off-topic from this article, but the bottom line is that the major source for this article describes British psychobilly as being rather distinct, and as taking place somewhat before psychobilly really took off anywhere else in Europe. You'll also notice that the article only uses 3 brief 1-sentence quotes by Nick 13, and also quotes other figures like Lux Interior and Poison Ivy of the Cramps, Johnny Bower of the Guana Batz, and Kim Nekroman of the Nekromantix, so it is not based only on 1 interviewee. The reason the article relies so heavily on the 1 source (the Alternative Press article) is because that was the only good source I could find discussing the history of the genre. If you have other reliable third-party source material to add to the article, please do. But unsourced information should stay out per Wikipedia's article content policies. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that you are wrong about the Wreckingpit. This is the oldest database about psychobillybands (online since 1995) on the internet. It's just a classification of all bands that exist/have existed since the early 80's. So I think it can definately be seen as an informationsource. By the way the reluctance to name Batmobile in the article for me is an exemple of not wanting to do research on the subject. I'll give you a few links from which you may see the relevance of Batmobile; The Dutch Popinstitute: [9] The dutch Wikipedia: [10] Batmobile at the KlubFoot (which you mention in your article): [11] Some clips from the band, 1985 Musix Box: [12] 1986 @ The KlubFooot: [13] 1989: Dutch National TV: [14] 1991 Japan: [15] and more recently in Hollywood: [16] If you don't feel the need of doing a little more research, maybe you can listen to the advice of people who are into this scene for over 25 years? --JJHammer (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you to assume good faith on my part. My reverting your previous edits is not due to a "reluctance to name Batmobile in the article", it is merely a reluctance to include unreferenced/unverified information and sidebar-type commments in an otherwise fairly well-written and decently-sourced article. Per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to include the information. The onus is not on me go out and do background research on Batmobile just because you think they should be mentioned in the article. As I've said, the English Wikipedia does not even have an article on Batmobile. If you think there should be one, and you think they should be mentioned in this article, the onus is on you to do the research and writing. I am active in many other areas of Wikipedia as well as in real life (a full-time job and graduate school). As much as I would like to spend countless hours searching the internet for reliable information on bands I've never heard of, I am unable to do so. My answer to this is: why don't you do the research? You clearly have the ability and interest, as you've demonstrated by providing sources here. Whether you have been "into this scene for over 25 years" or are more of a newcomer to it, such as myself, is irrelevant; Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and therefore we all have the same opportunity to contribute constructively to articles. Besides which, insinuating that because I haven't been "into" psychobilly for as long as you have, that I can't write a decent article or make judgements on content that does/doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards is highly elitist and makes other editors not want to collaborate with you. I may not be a self-professed expert on psychobilly, but I'll wager that I likely have more experience working on Wikipedia and might actually know what I'm talking about when I explain the policies and guidelines for article content. Again, please assume good faith and try to remain civil; don't reprimand me for not offering to do research that you aren't willing to do yourself. That said, thank you for the links you've provided. I will go through them and do what I can to add content to the article based on the ones that appear to be good, reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. It's just that if you have been a part of something so long and someone decides to write about it (which is a good thing), you'd like to have the facts right. And reading the comments here, I was not the only one that felt that way. And instead of only complaining, I was just trying to contribute a bit to further improve the article by offering links and the knowledge of someone who was there at the time. --JJHammer (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your efforts to help make the article more complete. I got a little riled up by the last sentence of your previous comment, which seemed directed at me in a condescending and slightly elitist way. However I do appreciate your contributions and, like you, I want to see the article made more thorough. I'll have a look at those links and I'll also do some searching on my own to see what else I can dig up on Batmobile that might be good to include in the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me the phrase. Good luck with the links. I just saw someone started an article on Batmobile (band). I'll get my butt overthere and give some (constructive) input —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJHammer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It also might be interesting to say something about the KlubFoot recordings that were recently bought by Anagram/Cherry Red from Link Records and they are restoring the old material, with the first release just being a fact (Batmobile in 1986 at the KlubFoot); see link above --JJHammer (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Quakes/Batmobile

The album Voice of America by The Quakes came out in 1990 not 1992- You can check the Quakes website www.thequakes.com or the Nervous records web site www.nervous.co.uk you have obviously referenced the article in Alternative Press(nov 2004) but it is incorrect. Please do not believe everything just because it is in print(or on wikipedia). I have to agree that Batmobile was unquestionably at the top of the scene in the 80's and I would suggest that you do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do the research? Wikipedia is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just check out the policies and guidelines first, particularly these ones. Verifiability and no original research are probably the most pertinent here. As I say above, I'm sure that Batmobile are significant, but I can't find any sources that discuss them. Wikipedia's policies require that articles be based primarily on reliable secondary sources. This article may rely almost entirely on only 1 source, but it's certainly a reliable one and the only good third-party source that anyone's presented so far. If you can find more good secondary sources, then by all means use them to improve the article. You appear to be correct about the year Voice of America was released, but that's really a minor error and there's no need to be insulting about it. The point of providing a date was that another editor was repeatedly changing the mention of Voice of America to the band's first, self-titled album, since the way the sentence flowed made it seem like it was discussing their first album. But actually the source (the AP article) is specifically discussing Voice of America as the influential album, so I changed the sentence a bit to add the date and make this clear. Finally, don't insult other editors (me specifically) by telling them to "do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles"...anyone has the freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia, and is encouraged to do so as long as they act in good faith. Considering the major work I put in rewriting this article from this state into what it is now, sourcing it, and adding images and sound samples, I find it very insulting that you would say something like that. I did plenty of research, believe me (even searching my university library), I just couldn't find any other good sources discussing psychobilly. Insulting my contributions while calling yourself the "psychobilly police" isn't going to make you many friends here on Wikipedia, and is probably just going to encourage other editors (myself included) to hit that revert button on you. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...and because YOU cant find any articles in any punk magazines,Batmobile didnt exist..right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.214.71 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has presented any good sources for Batmobile, even in the Batmobile article itself. I looked, and couldn't find any. And not just online, but also through library and article database searches (I'm a graduate student, so I used the resources I had available). Please stop being condescending and try being civil; it makes people want to work with you instead of against you. I never said anything to the effect that Batmobile didn't exist, I simply said that to include some discussion of their significance in an encyclopedia article we need some outside sources (as required by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) that discuss that significance. Since nobody's presented any reliable secondary sources, it's not appropriate to just slap mentions of Batmobile in the article simply for the sake of having their name dropped in their. Particularly when the rest of the article does stick to source material. If you know of any good sources that discuss Batmobile's significance to psychobilly, please post some links here and I and other interested editors will be happy to check them out. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thats just it- There Are and were no articles in music papers or books about psychobilly until maybe just recently- This is a total underground scene. A scene that you know very little about.Im not being condesending, its obvious. I stick with my statement that if its not in a book or a magazine then it didnt happen (according to you). Why not ask Nervous records how many records Batmobile has sold. Why not look on you tube and see their videos dating back to the mid 80's Why not check the psychobilly-online.com and wreckingpit.com web sites. Your only source seems to be what Nick 13 has said in Alternative press 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again with the Nick 13 tear-downs. The article quotes Nick 13 only 3 times for a total of 4 sentences. It also quotes Poison Ivy of the Cramps twice, and Johnny Bowler of the Guana Batz, Kim Nekroman of Nekromantix, the writer of the AP article, and the Epitaph/Hellcat publicist each once. I fail to see what the problem is with quoting several figures from various eras of the genre. You see the name Nick 13 in the article and immediately assume that whoever wrote it knows nothing about psychobilly, which is anything but true. I may not be the authority on psychobilly (which I've never claimed to be), but I'll wager I have much more knowledge about the workings of Wikipedia. In answer to your accusation that "if its not in a book or a magazine then it didnt happen (according to you)", my answer is that I've never claimed anything of the sort. What I have said, rather, is that Wikipedia cares whether information in its articles has been previously published by reliable sources, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I have never claimed that Batmobile doesn't exist. I know for a fact that they do. What I don't have are any sources to cite explaining their significance, particularly any third-party ones. This might work but it doesn't say anything about their significance and doesn't appear to be a reliable source (as it reads like a fan page). This doesn't help either, as messageboards aren't reliable sources. There are some interviews here that certainly would be helpful to the Batmobile article but aren't of much use to this one. Same thing with their myspace (it does mention their origin & date of formation...I think I will add that in). This might be helpful if it were in English or had a translation (for policy on non-English sources see WP:VUE). This isn't a source at all, but an advertisement. As for Youtube, the bottom line is that Youtube is almost never considered a reliable source and often isn't allowed to be used as a source because of copyvio (besides, what would it verify? "Batmobile made a music video for this song"...how does that explain their overall significance to psychobilly?). Yes, I would really really like a book, magazine article, or album review that talks about Batmobile and discusses their significance to psychobilly. That would be fantastic. It's not enough to simply say "Batmobile exists". For the context of this article, which is about the genre as a whole, we need to know why they are important. Who have they influenced? Why do they stand out? Which of their albums are considered essential to the genre? I haven't found any good sources that mention these things (and as you can see, it's not for lack of trying). I have added a couple of things from their Myspace profile, but this can't be relied on too much as it is a self-published source (see WP:RS). --IllaZilla (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It took me just a couple of minutes searching to find that there are a number of books that could be used as sources. Craig Brackenridge has written some [17] and there are other sources as well such as [18]. I'm sure there are plenty more sources that could be used if you searched harder. --JD554 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Those look like great sources. That's the kind of thing I was hoping to find by searching my university library, but they didn't have them. If I have the time I may order 1 or 2 of those books and do some more reading. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Hello JD554! Fancy finding YOU here- It seems you DO have some axe to grind... well what a surprise. Both of you fellas certainly know more about wikipedia than I do- In fact I know know very little and I dont have time to learn. What I am learning from both of you that something has to be in a book or a magazine in order to have happened regardless of who wrote the book or article. Who will check THEIR accuracy? Obviously you didnt check the accuracy of the AP article- you just ran with it. Why dont you guys turn off your computer and go outside? PsychobillyPolice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. And why should we doubt the accuracy of things published in reliable sources? No one's challenged the accuracy of anything in the AP article, you're merely upset that there were some bands it didn't mention. There's a difference between being inaccurate and being concise or selective. We have no reason to doubt the source, just as I'd have little reason to doubt the accuracy of any of these books JD544 has brought to our attention. In fact, now that I know they exist, I'm interested in reading them and possibly using them to add more info to this article. After all, that's how you write an encyclopedia. Accordinng to you we should disbelieve information that comes from an informative article in a nationally-published music magazine with multiple firsthand interviews, and information from published books, whereas we should readily accept information that comes from fan sites of dubious value, message boards, and people like yourself who say "I'm a bigger psychobilly fan than you are so you must listen to me because I'm right and you're wrong". And again, we're not arguing about whether things happened or not (no one has said that bands like Batmobile didn't exist), we're arguing about how we should discuss their significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok sir- How do YOU know that "Voice of America" was an influential album by The Quakes? Because it said so in the AP article? And who wrote that article? Couldnt it be said that this is an opinion? Was it influential? I know that YOU dont know...you are taking APS word for it. Did Nick 13 say it was influential? To him or to the whole scene? Dont you see that your whole article is full of opinions and not facts? Stick to punk rock Please! PsychobillyPolice- Now please report me or delete me or anything you can do to silence me because I have challenged you...right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

←I know that Voice of America was influential because a reliable source discussing the album says so. With respect, I'll trust the analysis of a professional writer and music critic writing for a nationally-published alternative music magazine over somebody who calls themselves the "psychobilly police" and does nothing but start arguments. Welcome to the world of research writing, where we trust in reliable sources rather than inflammatory fans. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"I am a music elitist nerd" You said it! bye for now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychobillypolice (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the Batmobile discussion goes on. I'm not a Wiki expert but here are a few links of shows they did the last 25 years, which might be considered as interesting background information: flyers or this more flyers. And some info, reviews, and stuff I found: more info. --JJHammer (talk) 09:31, 09 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are mentioned in the article now, though we still need some kind of reliable third-party source attesting to their importance/influence/impact. The Batmobile (band) article already has links to their website & myspace. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Illazillapedia?!

Why is someone who knows nothing about psychobilly writing an article about it? Who's to decide whether a source is reliable or not? The ones who are what the article is about, or someone who picked up a magazine and decided to write about it? This is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.168.238 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Just deal with it. I know enough about psychobilly, and plenty enough about Wikipedia, to write a decent article about it. But that's not even the important part: the important thing is that I'm willing to put in the time & effort to find sources around which to write said article, rather than just writing what I think it ought to say, or twisting the sources to suit my views, or only using sources that support my views, and I care enough to make sure that it stays true to those sources and to Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Just look at how the article was before I rewrote it using the AP article as a source, compared to how it looks now; you cannot possibly argue that this source did not add a ton of useful, verfiable content to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a gobbledygoock collection of psycho fans' opinions.

We have reasonably clear guidelines on what constitutes reliable sources: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Alternative Press is a professional, respected music publication with a reliable publication process, nationwide distribution, and a staff of professional writers and music critics. They are absolutely a reliable source in relation to this subject, and unquestionably a better source for writing an encyclopedia article than a bunch of fan sites & myspaces. Wikipedia prefers (nay, requires) that Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fan sites like "the wrecking pit", myspace blogs, and messageboard forums are not reliable, third-party sources with reputations for fact-checking or accuracy.

This is how you do research, and how you write encyclopedia articles: find useful sources, consult them, then form conclusions and present them in an article. You do not make your conclusions first and then try to scrape together any random "source" you can that fits those conclusions. That is completely back-asswards. Unless you are willing to put in the time and effort to find reliable sources, and cite them in the article, then you are the one being absurd. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

audio examples

8 non-free audio examples is waaaaay too many for any article. --Kaini (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not for featured articles. See punk rock. More leeway is given to audio samples than non-free images, since audio samples are just a small portion rather than the full copyrighted work. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment needed

Inaccurate and sorely lacking in authoritative sources such as Ted Polhemus (Street Style 1994) and Craig Brackenridge (Hells Bent on Rockin' 2007). 14 references listed, but most of the article is written from the POV of one author, Ryan J. Downey, in one article for Alternative Press. This is not acceptable for a B-class article. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources would of course be very welcome. If you have sources like the books mentioned above, feel free to use them to improve the article. Do you know if any such books are available online, such as through Google Books? I would very much like to add additional sources to the article but do not have the funds at present to order physical copies of books online. I'm limited to what I have on-hand (I have many books on punk rock, as it was my Masters thesis topic, but precious little on psycho), what I can find online, and what I can find at local university libraries. If free digital copies of any of these books are available, it would be of great help. There were some other books mentioned a year or 2 ago in another thread somewhere, but I can't seem to find the relevant post now. I'll keep looking. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See the above section. You need to find additional sources supporting the opinion of Downey, which I feel you have misrepresented. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have certainly not misreprented Downey. As I have pointed out above, he explicitly states that a psychobilly scene was "practically nonexistent" in the U.S. until the '90s, and goes on to give reasons why. If you disagree with his statement, you need to add additional sources to the article countering it. Please stop shifting the onus to me, simply because you disagree with the cited source. If you feel that the source is incorrect, then you need to gather your own sources and do some writing of your own. If you are unable to do so, then I will be happy to continue working on the article using any sources you are able to provide here. But as it stands, the article accurately reflects the sources that it references. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you are ignoring the two sources I have given you, Billboard and The New York Times, both contradicting your assessment and appeal to a single solitary source which continues to be misrepresented as fact in the article. Please reply directly to my challenge instead of trying to force your material into the article. Please also avoid the long page screeds and respect the reader with a brief reply. The cites in question are Billboard; 7/16/94, Vol. 106 Issue 29, p.12 and New York Times; 7/30/1986, p.19. To recap, the Billboard article shows that the new interest in the genre was from major labels and says nothing about the scene being "practically nonexistent", and The New York Times supports the existence of a vibrant scene as early as 1986. Please respond to this challenge with a second reliable source supporting Downey's opinion, which appears to be either false or a misrepresentation of the facts on your part. And just to be clear, the onus is on you. Your use of the Downey source was challenged, and you have ignored the challenge, preferring to edit war instead. That is very poor editing on your part. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Source?

but remained largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s

Not true. It was very popular from the mid to late 1980s in California. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed the entire statement. The editor who wrote it was around 5 years old at the time, so the oversight is understandable. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Making judgments based on my age does not reflect an assumption of good faith on your part. Age does not affect one's ability to do research, and I've done mine. The article must reflect the source material, per the verifiability and original research policies. You cannot remove sourced material simply because you disagree with what it says. Here are some relevant quotes from the Downey article:

• Before Tiger Army started touring in support of their 1999 debut, the psycho scene in the U.S. was practically nonexistent. There were fans in a few towns who hung with the rockabillies or punks, but psycho was their little imported secret.
• European record labels like Nervous (U.K.) and Crazy Love (Germany) were crucial as psychobilly continued to be virtually unnoticed in the U.S. Which is quite odd, given the genre's celebration of a music form that's intrinsically American.
• "It's not any less 'American' than riting a scooter, being a skinhead or being into Two-Tone ska," Nick 13 reasons. "All those things came here in a big way, despite the fact that they don't have anything to do with America, per sé. Why psychobilly is the only [import] that didn't come over here [back then], I really don't know."
• If Tiger Army had a spiritual predecessor, it would be the Quakes, who were alone in America–hampered by poor distribution and the fact that psycho bands were more into playing weekenders than full-on touring–during the second wave. Their 1987 move to London paid off: The Quakes became important to the European psycho scene and even released an album with Sony Japan.
• The third wave of psychobilly arriving in the mid-'90s was crucial to the scene's continued evolution. Southern California was particularly fertile ground for the movement.
• "Some people say the psychobilly scene has gotten too big," Nick 13 ways. "The funny thing is that none of the maybe 200 Americans who were into it before it grew are complaining. Back then, people wished there was a scene so they could find records and the European bands could afford to tour the States. The people complaining got into it after it started growing. They weren't around when it was really small."

So there you have it. Downey explicitly states that the U.S. psycho scene was "practically nonexistent" until the late '90s, and that the genre was "virtually unnoticed" in the U.S. before then. Of course that's not to say that there were no bands at all, or that the genre had zero popularity–he does say there were isolated pockets of fans–but the genre was so beneath-the-radar that the Quakes (from New York) had to move to London in '87 to find an audience. Downey clearly places psychobilly's rising popularity in Southern California squarely in the mid-'90s, citing bands like Tiger Army, the Godless Wicked Creeps, Asmodeus, and the Kryptonix, as well as the rise of Hellcat Records, the Nekromantix' move to SoCal, etc. The statement that "Psychobilly gained underground popularity in Europe beginning in the early 1980s, but remained largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s" is clearly supported by the source, and the relevant citations are found in the History section. The lead section is a summary and does not require citations, as those are found in the body paragraphs. In this case the lead section clearly reflects the content of the article body. By contrast, your statement that "It was very popular from the mid to late 1980s in California" is entirely unsourced and totally contradicts the article's main source. There may have been a few fans here and there, but the Downey article makes it explicitly clear that psychobilly did not gain a significant foothold in the U.S. until the mid-to-late '90s. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article currently states that psychobilly "remained largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s". This statement is not supported as fact. What is true, however, is that major record labels did not become aware of the genre until the 1990s. (Billboard; 7/16/94, Vol. 106 Issue 29, p.12) Big difference, and you failed to note it. That's what happens when you don't read carefully, and why you should not rely on only one source for your information, especially anecdotal stories told by self-important musicians promoting their bands. The majority of the article relies on the opinion of a single 2004 music article written in Alternative Press. I don't see this broad, general opinion attributed to any single person, yet you state it as if it were a fact. Please provide a second reliable source that supports it, without interpretation. A Google news search shows that the genre was well known in the U.S. prior to the 1990s, and the "scene" was already established. The 1994 Billboard article shows that the watershed event in the U.S. was major label interest; It was not "largely unknown in the U.S." For one of many examples that directly refutes your claim, Robert Palmer, former chief rock critic of The New York Times in 1986 wrote: "...psychobilly bands abound, in the United States and especially in Britain, where bands with guitars but no bass are now fairly common." (New York Times; 7/30/1986, p.19) According to your user page, you were around 5 years old at this time, no? I wasn't trying to insult you, but rather making the point that your oversight is understandable given your age. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the sources that it cites. If your main problem is a lack of additional sources, then feel free to add some and to change the text to reflect them. There are several glaring inaccuracies in your above comment:

• The article currently states that psychobilly "remained largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s". This statement is not supported as fact. —Ryan Downey's Alternative Press article explicitly states "Before Tiger Army started touring in support of their 1999 debut, the psycho scene in the U.S. was practically nonexistent." As I quoted above, the Downey article specifically comments several times on the fact that psychobilly was not well-known in the United States until the mid-to-late '90s. In what better way could this statement be "supported as fact"?
• What is true, however, is that major record labels did not become aware of the genre until the 1990s. —The involvement or awareness of major record labels is not the determining factor in the genre becoming "known" in the U.S. As I pointed out in the above quotes from the Downey article, there were few psychobilly bands in the United States until the 1990s, and those that were around (like the Quakes) did not have good distribution of their records and did not widely tour. The genre's main area of activity was in Europe, but those bands did not often tour the States. These factors are made explicit in the history section, and cited.
• That's what happens when you don't read carefully, and why you should not rely on only one source for your information, especially anecdotal stories told by self-important musicians promoting their bands. —I read quite carefully, thank you. Your opinions on my research skills are neither accurate nor relevant. The information is not based on "anecdotal stories told by self-important musicians", it is based on the writings of a professional music journalist (Ryan Downey). You are failing to distinguish Nick 13's comments from Downey's statements. Nick 13's comments do support what Downey says, but it's Downey himself who explicitly says that psychobilly was "practically nonexistent" in the States until the mid-late '90s.
• The majority of the article relies on the opinion of a single 2004 music article written in Alternative Press. —I don't see the problem here. Yes, additional sources are needed and are welcome, but there is nothing wrong with the Alternative Press article in itself; it is completely reliable. It is 7-page cover story in a nationally-distributed music publication, written by a professional music journalist, and including interviews with several key figures of the genre.
• I don't see this broad, general opinion attributed to any single person, yet your state it as if it were a fact. —Really? You don't? Let me me state it again: It is attributed to music journalist Ryan J. Downey, a contributing writer to Alternative Press.
• Please provide a second reliable source that supports it. A Google news search shows that the genre was well known in the U.S. prior to the 1990s, and the "scene" was already established. —If you want to make the case that psychobilly was well-known in the U.S. prior to the 1990s, then you need to provide sources stating that. I have provided a source explicitly stateing that it was not well-known in the U.S. prior to the '90s. If you have found sources through Google news to support your assertion, then please feel free to add content to the article and to cite those sources. Removing valid, sourced information based on your opinion, without adding any new sources of your own to counter the claim, is not constructive. I have actually cited a source and written article content around it, you have not.

My age has nothing whatsoever to do with my research or writing, or so-called "oversight". I have a degree in History; the majority of my academic career involved writing about things that took place before I was born. Being there, or having been old enough to have been there, has no relevance as far as writing for Wikipedia is concerned: I found a source, I wrote content that accurately reflects the source, and I cited the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have now reverted for the second time without actually reading what I wrote. I have provided two reliable sources which contradict your one source, which you do not appear to have represented accurately in the article. Please stop flooding the talk page with long screeds and respond directly to the material I have challenged. You are edit warring over material which I have clearly shown to be either 1) misrepresented by you, or 2) inaccurate. I have offered you Billboard; 7/16/94, Vol. 106 Issue 29, p.12 and a 1986 statement from Robert Palmer, former chief rock critic of The New York Times. Please respond directly to these statements with brief replies, and do not persist in adding challenged material, especially from poor sources such as AR. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are edit-warring: You are continually removing information that is reliably sourced without adding any new prose or citations of your own. As I have explained now multiple times, I have not misrepresented the material: The article's main source explicitly states that psychobilly was "pratically nonexistent" in the U.S. until the mid-late '90s. Please explain to me how stating that the genre "remained largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s" constitutes "misrepresenting" that source. Whether Downey's statement is accurate or not is a matter of your own opinion, as is your dismissal of Alternative Press as a "poor source", and as always the standard is verifiability, not truth. Giving me page numbers here on the talk page does not help: I do not have access to print copies of Billboard or The New York Times, so I cannot track down these sources myself to read them and add content from them to the article. If you have access to them, then you need to do the follow-through of actually writing some new content for the article, rather than simply continually removing sourced statements that you don't agree with. Are these sources available online, and if so could you provide links? I would be happy to read them and write some new article prose based on them if I had access to them myself. To claim that I have made "no reply or statement for adding challenged content" is complete bollocks, as I have made several replies already as to why the "challenged content" is an accurate reflection of the article's main source. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have given you the directly cited material and explained it. Is there a reason you cannot provide another source that supports Downey's opinion? Please understand, we do not write encyclopedia articles based on the single opinion of a writer in Alternative Press, especially when you are misrepresenting that opinion as fact when it is not. For example, you quote Downey as saying, "Before Tiger Army started touring in support of their 1999 debut, the psycho scene in the U.S. was practically nonexistent. There were fans in a few towns who hung with the rockabillies or punks, but psycho was their little imported secret." Is that Downey's opinion? Fine, then attribute it as such in the body of the article, but do not claim it as a fact in the lead section. Do you understand the difference between attributing opinions and stating facts? Also, please talk a bit about who Downey is, and the authority of the source. When the chief rock critic of the NYT in 1986 says "psychobilly bands abound" in the United States, and the press if full of material about the scene, there is clearly a problem with Downey's opinion, and your characterization of it. (Note, "abound" is defined as "be abundant or plentiful; exist in large quantities") Looking into it further, the Billboard article makes it clear that this was something new for the major labels, not new altogether. Please address this challenge with additional sources that support your interpretation of an opinion from Downey. Please remember, we do not couch opinions as fact. It is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) to attribute Dawson in the article, but to take his opinion as authoritative on the matter requires clarification. Please do so. As I stated earlier, the reliance on the opinion of a single source is a sign that something is wrong with the article. When a claim is challenged, it is best left on the talk page until editors can work out the details. Let's do that. Broad, sweeping claims are automatically suspicious when they appear without attribution and can only be interpreted from a single source. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Direct question, direct answer: Do you have any intention of adding content to the article using these sources? Because if not, you are not helping the article at all. I could not find the Billboard article available online, and the NYT article requires payment to be viewed in full. Since I do not have access to physical copies of these publications, this means that I am not able add content based on them or to cite them. Since you found the sources, and you want the wording of the article changed, the onus is on you to change it and to add citations from these sources. How you imagine it to be my job to add content from sources you have found is beyond me. Merely naming sources here on the talk page is not helping much, especially if they are not available online. You need to actually write some article content and make the proper citations. If you are unwilling to do so, then all this arguing on the talk page amounts to nothing. I will be restoring the previous text to the lead and adding a citiation to Downey's quote. If you would like to change it, I invite you to add prose to the article body and cite your sources. We can then decide how the lead needs to be re-worded in order to balance the sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

cancel redirect from Gothabilly page

Although Gothabilly is seen by some as an offshoot of Psychobilly, much of the music fashion and culture is distinct. Bands that may fall under the Gothabilly umbrella can not truly be classified as Psychobilly. As it is not "the same" this distinct sub-genre should have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkullyEnterprises (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can improve that article by citing reliable secondary sources to both verify the information and show notability, then by all means do. But in its previous version it was completely unreferenced, filled with mostly original research, and functioned mainly as a place for editors to list their favorite bands. The same was true of the punkabilly article; they were both poorly-written, unsourced stubs. General consensus on both articles' talk pages ([19], [20]) was to merge/redirect to this article. The redirects should not be undone without major improvements to the articles in the form of secondary source referencing. If they are undone with no improvements, they will just be redirected again.

P.S. please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment or by clicking the signature button above the edit window (next to the "no W" button). --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a new Gothabilly article and it was taken down and redirected within minutes with no explanation. Kevin Skully (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, but it didn't have any references, so I reverted it. Since it was merged by consensus, I recommend presenting your sources here first before recreating the article. And yes, I did give an explanation, in my edit summary: "merged by consensus, use talk pages for discussion". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Uutela, Deanna (Oct 07), "Case of the Zombies", Eugene Weekley.
• Valarie Thorpe Interview with Ghoultown's Count Lyle reallyscary.com. Retrieved on April 14, 2009
• Kirst, Sean (October 2007), "A Halloween greatest hit ... the tale of Skully Records", The Post-Standard, Syracuse, NY.
• Rambali, Paul (June 1978), "The Cramps: Psychobilly and Other Musical Diseases", NME.
• Breen, Meagan (April 09), "an introspective into gothabilly", Auxiliary Magazine, issue 3.
• Bunting, Melysah (December 2008), "A Guide to Styling: Retro Rockabilly Pin-Up Girl Hairstyles".
• Johnson, Daniel (April 2009), "The Growth of Gothabilly", RSEE, Riverside County, CA

--Kevin Skully (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I think I see what happened. You put in the references, but you didn't create a references section. Without a reference code like {{reflist}} your refs won't show. Let me dig 'em up and take a look at them. I might not be able to go through them until tomorrow. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think no need any special article for "Gothabilly", it need to redirect to article "Psychobilly", IMHO. I'm agree with Jen Kaminsky's opinion: "Just like the musicians of the 50’s, modern bands bring a variety of styles to the rockabilly sound. The main difference today is that these styles are rarely country or rhythm ‘n’ blues. So I think of the psycho genre as being an umbrella-type term for all the different strands of contemporary and post-punk rockabilly. I totally support the creation of a new genre when a band is doing something new with the music, but I don’t think that the bands that claim to be all of these stupid billy genres are doing that. They just want to be cool, and think that claiming to be some type of weird billy genre will help." --DrDrake100 (talk) 02:00, 01 February 2011 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with you, there do seem to be some sources to support the article. It would take some careful reviewing of those sources to justify re-redirecting the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaminski

Dear IllaZilla! Please, don't be afraid of alternative opinion! The opinion of J.Kaminski have got the right to a place in Wiki no less than your opinion. You said, it's opinion of 1 critic, but you have no independent sources and strong & serious arguments in the support of anti-Kaminski position. Where any experts supporting your point of view? I don't see that sourses at all. It means the case is not another one than your own personal opinion. So, your opinion (without any sourses) vs. Kaminski opinion. I like both the positions. Lets they will be both in the article;-) Yours truly... --DrDrake100 (talk) 17:00, 07 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "afraid", and it's not an "alternative opinion". Kaminski's statements contradict themselves: She says in her second sentence that "psychobilly, thrashabilly, trashabilly, punkabilly, surfabilly, gothabilly, etc." are all subgenres of rockabilly. She then gives a history of rockabilly. Then at the end she says that she personally thinks psychobilly is a legit genre, but that "I personally think it's lame that every band needs 16 different adjectives to describe their sound [...] So I think of the psycho genre as being an umbrella-type term for all the different strands of contemporary and post-punk rockabilly." She is describing how she personally choses to lump these subgenres together in her own mind, after having already acknowledged that they are different subgenres of rockabilly. The fact that one person chooses to use psychobilly as an umbrella term in her own mind out of personal preference is not significant to the genre of psychobilly as a whole, and certainly does not merit that opinion being declared in the second sentence of an article about psychobilly. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. The statement has to be read in the context of the whole article. It is contradictory and the writer clearly indicates that this is just them working out this stuff in their own mind.--SabreBD (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Quakes

The article is incorrect on the Quakes. The first album by The Quakes came out in June of 1988 on Nervous Records Cat # NERD037. The band had been living in London. They are not from New York, they are from Buffalo, NY.

It was the second Quakes album Voice of America that came out in 1990 also on Nervous Records cat#NERD058 that Downey mentioned in the AP article as being "influential" and this is just his opinion. If anything it was the first album that was influential.(opinion of the fans)

There were no other psychjobilly bands in the USA in 1986 when the Quakes started. I dont know what the NY Times guy is talking about. If there were these bands, what were the names of them? and where are the recordings?

Please do some research, ask Roy Williams at Nervous records what kind of demos he was getting from the USA at this time.(all rockabilly). There was some distribution of Nervous records and other psychobilly in Buffalo Ny, Rochester NY and also Toronto Canada. That is because the people that owned the shops ordered them specifically. Usually just one copy. the Quakes knew about this scene mainly because in 1985,Paul Roman of The Quakes went to London to try and start a rockabilly band.

All of these things are true and with a little bit of research they can be proven. It bothers me that people take the AP article as the gospel when its mostly one sided opinion. I welcome any responses, Thank you. Koffsol (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Read it again: the article doesn't say that Voice of America was their first album, and neither does the source. Downey's point is that the band didn't experience success until they moved to the UK, where psychobilly had a following, since it didn't really have a following in the US. He doesn't mention the first album because it didn't make much impact on the genre. The "opinion of the fans" makes no difference, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which say that Voice of America was the influential album, not the debut, which was "hampered by poor distribution" and the fact that most US psycho bands didn't tour. The article also does say they were from Buffalo: "The Quakes formed in Buffalo, New York in 1986, but had such difficulty building a following in their hometown that they moved to London the following year, where they released the album Voice of America in 1990." Downey also agrees with you about the US psychobilly scene: not to say there weren't bands, but that it didn't gain anywhere near the following that the UK/Europe psycho scene did and thus, even though there may have been bands playing, the psycho scene in the US was "virtually nonexistent" and the genre went "practically unnoticed" until the late '90s. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you IllaZilla- My point is that Downeys claim that Voice of America was influential, is the OPINION of he and Nick 13- where is the reliable source to say otherwise?

I can tell you that The Quakes did not tour the USA because there was no point. No one had even heard of psychobillyin the USA. The scene was in Europe and Japan.(Koffsol (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia content is based on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Downey is a music journalist for a notable music publication (Alternative Press). That's exactly the kind of source in position to make that claim, and by citing the claim to Downey we are telling our readers where that claim comes from. That's how research writing is done. I don't really understand what your problem with it is: you and Downey agree that there was pretty much no psycho scene in the US, you agree that the Quakes' first album didn't make much impact because of this. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Im NOT claiming that The first Quakes album did not make an impact because of the fact that there was not a scene in the USA. The first Quakes album has far out sold Voice of America that was released in 1990. The Quakes never even bothered to try to make any impact in the USA because the genre was unheard of here.

• Are you disagreeing with Downey that Voice of America was influential? Because the article doesn't actually say that...

It did in an earlier version of the article and yes I am. The article was constructed by Downey and Nick 13. (Downey is Nicks manager)

• it just says that it was released after their move to the UK.

Well this is incorrect. The Quakes were living in London in 1988 when the first Lp was released. Two years later when Voice of America was released, they were back living in Buffalo, NY where the album was recorded with Robbie Takac of the Goo Goo Dolls as engineer.

• Downey does say that the band "became important to the European psycho scene and even released an album with Sony Japan", but the article just mentions their move to the UK, in the context of their not being a psycho scene in the US at the time.

Ok but The Quakes moved to England in 1988 before the recorded the first album. They had been going back and forth from Buffalo to London since 1986 and they were deported twice for not having a work permit. --72.222.193.145 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• It did in an earlier version of the article and yes I am. The article was constructed by Downey and Nick 13. (Downey is Nicks manager)

By "the article" I meant the Wikipedia article, not the Alternative Press article. The Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about either album being influential, it just mentions the band's move to London due to their difficulty building a US following, and the release of Voice of America (I'm not sure what earlier version you're referring to; there haven't been any major revisions to this article in over a year). The Wikipedia article wasn't constructed by Downey or Nick 13, it was constructed mostly by me. I'm not aware of any connection between Downey and Nick 13 outside of Nick 13 being interviewed for Downey's article. I'm going to have to ask for a source for your claim that Downey is Nick's manager. I'd also like to see a source for your claim that "The first Quakes album has far outsold Voice of America". I think that Downey may highlight Voice of America in part due to the irony of the title, as The Quakes were an American band who relocated to the UK to gain a following. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You will find that Downey is Nick 13s manager on the Tiger Army website www.tigerarmy.com and to find proof that the first Quakes album sold more than Voice of America, you can contact Roy Williams at Nervous records (Koffsol (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC))koffsol June 28 2011

Parent Genres?

If it's called psychobilly, the assumption would be that it melds psychedelia and rockabilly, not punk and rockabilly. Should the initial line be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completelyanon (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, psychedelia has nothing to do with it. Read the rest of the article, please. (It's psycho, as in psychotic, not psychedelic). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic Origins

I'm going to keep it simple by just saying Rockabilly and Punk, that makes it more general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.37.41 (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The stylistic origins are all reflected and sourced in the article body. The infobox is supposed to reflect the article contents. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Could I at least make it so that Rockabilly and Punk are listen before those other genres. I feel that the main inspirations should go before the others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.37.41 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The Cramps, generally recognized as the first psychobilly band, took their inspiration from blues, garage rock, rhythm and blues (as detailed & sourced in the history section). The Cramps formed in '72, predating punk rock by several years (though it had earlier stirrings, punk rock "birth year" is generally recognized as '77). If you read through the history section, the infobox origin genres are listed pretty much in the order that they came to influence psychobilly's development. Even though the most obvious origins (from today's standpoint) are punk & rockabilly, the historical origins of the genre have further roots that came into play even before those. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

largely unknown in the US until the late 90s?? - mostly incorrect

Just a reading putting my 2 cents here - because I believe the claim that "it was largely unknown in the US until" is incorrect. While the label "Pyschobilly" might not have been in used the musical styling defintely were being played and created by American bands and musicians in the by early 80's.

A couple notable examples: The Beat Farmers, Mojo Nixion and, well, anybody every heard of the "Ramones" (yes, much of their musical can be categorized as psychobilly). Heck if you push it, one could even include the Dead Kennedy's and Social Distortion in that list.

Sure it wasn't called 'Psychobilly' in the US in the early 80's but the style was absolutely being played by US musicians and was fairly popular here then; in fact, a very good argument could be made about pyscobilly being originated US. Rockabilly, (the core context) itself was pretty much an American invention and the fusion of it with punk, humor and metal, new wave etc.. began becoming popular with musicians an audiences here in the US by the early 80s

Sorry, the idea given in this article that Pyschobilly started in (it's popularity anyway) Europe and the US didn't catch on until the late 1990's is embarrassingly RIDICULOUS.. I'd remove that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.28.99.133 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement that psychobilly was largely unknown in the United States until the late 1990s is well-supported by the article's cited sources. This has been discussed before: yes there were a handful of American acts playing this style of music, but they were underground and didn't receive mainstream recognition. The psychobilly "scene" was much more established in Europe and the UK, to the point where The Quakes, one of the few American psychobilly bands, moved to the UK to get more exposure. Your opinion that bands like the Ramones and Dead Kennedys fit the "psychobilly" bill are just that: your opinion, not backed up by any sources (and if I may say so, patently ridiculous: both of those bands are recognized as exemplars of punk rock in 99.9% of reliable sources; I've never seen a single source any of the acts you mention above with psychobilly). Psychobilly received little to no mainstream attention in the U.S. until the late 1990s, following the punk rock revival. That's when bands like Tiger Army, Reverend Horton Heat, etc. gained popularity, and some of the European acts (Nekromantix, HorrorPops, Guana Batz) relocated to the U.S. at that time. Being "largely unknown" doesn't mean that no bands or scenes existed, just that the style didn't receive mainstream attention and wasn't much known outside of underground music circles. Read the rest of the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Psychobilly started in the 70's in the U.S. and reached it's peak in the late 80's early 90's as did the punk rock scene from which it emerged. It was covered extensively in the underground press of the time. The Cramps were the first band called psychobilly, but the term was used retroactively to describe earlier rockabilly artists such as Hasil Adkins, et al. 174.102.238.6 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to verify these claims? Being "underground" means not receiving mainstream attention and thus being "largely unknown". --IllaZilla (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

added a genre

Hi, I added 1970s-80s Rockabilly Revival to the list of genres...I think its good to make the distinction between that music and the 1950s Rockabilly. I believe I sourced the Rockabilly Revival point in the articleOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)